## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 24TH ASWINA, 1941**
**Bail Appl..No.7269 OF 2019**
**CRIME NO.3172/2014 OF MUVATTUPUZHA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM**
## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:**
**V.K.BEENA, AGED 48 YEARS, ADVOCATE, W/O.PUSHPANGATHAN, KRISHNA PRIYA, VENGALOOR P.O., THODUPUZHA-685608.**
**BY ADVS. SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM) SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ SRI.M.R.SUDHEENDRAN SRI.D.JAYAKRISHNAN JOHNSON CHAKKALAKKAL**
## **RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:**
**STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.**
## **BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. RAMESH CHAND**
**THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.10.2019 ALONG WITH BAIL APPL..7270/2019 & 7271/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:**
Bail Appl..No.7269/2019 & con. Cases
..2..
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V**
**WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 24TH ASWINA, 1941**
**Bail Appl..No.7270 OF 2019**
**CRIME NO.3255/2014 OF MUVATTUPUZHA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM**
## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:**
**V.K.BEENA, AGED 48 YEARS, ADVOCATE,W/O.PUSHPANGATHAN,'KRISHNA PRIYA',VENGALOOR.P.O,THODUPUZHA-685608.**
**BY ADVS. SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM) SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ SRI.M.R.SUDHEENDRAN SRI.D.JAYAKRISHNAN JOHNSON CHAKALAKKAL**
## **RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:**
**STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,MUVATTUPUZHA POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM-682031.**
## **BY SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. B. JAYASURYA**
**THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.10.2019, ALONG WITH BAIL APPL..7269/2019 & 7271/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:**
Bail Appl..No.7269/2019 & con. Cases
..3..
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V**
**WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 24TH ASWINA, 1941**
**Bail Appl..No.7271 OF 2019**
**CRIME NO.3171/2014 OF MUVATTUPUZHA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM**
## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:**
**V.K.BEENA, AGED 48 YEARS ADVOCATE, W/O.PUSHPANGATHAN, 'KRISHNA PRIYA', VENGALOOR.P.O, THODUPUZHA-685608**
**BY ADVS. SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM) SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ SRI.M.R.SUDHEENDRAN SRI.D.JAYAKRISHNAN JOHNSON CHAKKALAKKAL**
## **RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:**
**STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031**
## **BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. RAMESH CHAND**
**THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.10.2019, ALONG WITH BAIL APPL..7269/2019 & 7270/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:**
Bail Appl..No.7269/2019 & con. Cases
..4..
## **ORDER**
These applications are filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.
2. The applicant herein has been arrayed as the sole accused in Crime Nos.3172/2014, 3255/2014 & 3171/2014 registered at the Muvattupuzha Police Station under Sections 466 & 471 of the IPC.
3. The aforesaid Crimes have been registered on a complaint lodged by the Chief Ministerial Officer, Judicial First Class Magistrate Court – I, Muvattupuzha before the Station House Officer of the Muvattupuzha Police Station. In the complaint lodged before the police, it is alleged that scores of complaints filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by Gokulam Chits and Finance Company through its Power of Attorney Holder before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thodupuzha were returned to the complainant for presentation before the proper Court in tune with the directions issued by the Apex Court in **Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod** v. **State of Maharashtra[1]** . Accordingly, the complaints were received back by the applicant, who was the lawyer engaged by the Chit company by making endorsements in the complaints itself. Separate orders were passed by the learned Magistrate returning the complaints for presentation before
1 [2014 (3) KLT 605]
Bail Appl..No.7269/2019 & con. Cases
**==> picture [31 x 8] intentionally omitted <==**
the proper court. Accordingly, the returned complaints as well as the orders were produced before the learned Magistrate, Muvattupuzha, the jurisdictional court. On verification, it was observed by the Junior Superintendent that the dates in some of the orders were altered to ensure that the returned complaints was filed within the time prescribed. On further verification from the transferor court, the doubt entertained by the Ministerial Officer was found to be true. Alleging that the endorsement in the orders was altered and it was used as genuine to save the complaints from being time barred, separate complaints were lodged before the police. Consequently, separate crimes were registered and the sole accused was the Power of Attorney Holder of the de facto complainant, the Gokulam Chits & Finance Co.
4. In the course of investigation, it was revealed that it was the applicant herein, as the lawyer of the chit company, had received the returned complaints from the office of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thodupuzha and had re-presented them before the learned Magistrate, Muvattupuzha. In view of the said development, a report was submitted before the court below adding the applicant as additional accused. Thereafter, the sample handwriting and signature of the Power of Attorney Holder and the applicant were forwarded to the handwriting
Bail Appl..No.7269/2019 & con. Cases
**==> picture [31 x 8] intentionally omitted <==**
expert. However, it was returned directing the Investigating officer to produce the admitted signature, specimen signature as well as the disputed handwriting. By that time, the Investigating officer felt that no purpose will be served by furnishing the documents called for from the handwriting expert. A report was submitted before the learned Magistrate on 05.10.2016, reporting that further action against the accused be dropped. The learned Magistrate refused to accept the said request. The report was returned and the Investigating officer was directed to take steps for sending the documents to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram for examination. This order was passed on 09.11.2016.
5. In terms of the said direction, the handwriting and signature of the applicant herein was obtained under Section 311A of the Cr.P.C. and the same was forwarded to the Handwriting Expert. A report dated 05.06.2019 was obtained from the expert, wherein it was reported that the sample signature and the questioned documents exhibited significant similarities in individual writing characteristics. The expert concluded that it was the applicant, who had obtained the complaints as well as the orders from the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thodupuzha, and she herself was the counsel, who presented the
Bail Appl..No.7269/2019 & con. Cases
**==> picture [31 x 8] intentionally omitted <==**
complaints before the Judicial Magistrate First Class – I, Muvattupuzha. 6. Heard Sri.Vivek, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant, and the learned Public Prosecutor.
7. It is submitted by Sri.Vivek that the applicant is a veteran lady lawyer, who has been practicing in various courts in the State of Kerala for more than two decades and according to the learned counsel, there was not even a semblance of material to conclude that it was the applicant, who had made alterations and interlineations in the orders passed by the learned Magistrate. It is submitted by the learned counsel that a lawyer of her experience was well aware that she could have filed an application seeking condonation of delay and there was no reason for her to carry out manipulations. It is further submitted that the sample handwriting, which is sent to the handwriting expert, pertains only to the endorsement made by the applicant when she had received the complaint from the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thodupuzha. However, the case of the prosecution was that the dates in the orders were altered. The report received from the expert did not relate to this aspect. Merely because the documents were received by the applicant did not lead to the conclusion that it was the applicant, who had carried out the manipulation in the dates found in the order.
Bail Appl..No.7269/2019 & con. Cases
**==> picture [31 x 8] intentionally omitted <==**
8. I have considered the submissions advanced and have perused the case diary, which was made available. I find that the sample handwriting, which was forwarded to the Handwriting Expert Lab, was to the effect that ‘complaint and documents received’. The case of the prosecution is that the dates in the orders were altered. The mere fact that the documents were received by the applicant cannot be taken to mean that it was the applicant, who had made the alterations in the orders. The report of the Handwriting Expert does not say that it was the applicant, who had carried out the correction in the date part of the orders passed by the learned Magistrate. Having considered the entire facts, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for grant of pre-arrest bail. Her custodial interrogation is not necessary for an effective investigation.
In the result, these applications will stand allowed. The applicant shall appear before the Investigating officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation. Thereafter, if she is proposed to be arrested, she shall be released on bail on her executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum. The above order shall be subject to the following conditions:
Bail Appl..No.7269/2019 & con. Cases
**==> picture [31 x 8] intentionally omitted <==**
(i) The applicant shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when she is ordered to do so.
ii) She shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer.
iii) She shall not commit any similar offence while on bail.
In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.
**SD/-**
**RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE**
Bka/17.10.2019
